I don't see why it couldn't be worded a bit more neutrally. The original bulk of the article was taken by permission from a text written by a scholar in the field (who is himself, I believe, in one of these groups), [[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]]. In any event, it's curious that the person who wrote to you didn't see instead the inherent ''strengths'' of a publicly editable encyclopedia and come contribute.

I don't see why it couldn't be worded a bit more neutrally. The original bulk of the article was taken by permission from a text written by a scholar in the field (who is himself, I believe, in one of these groups), [[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]]. In any event, it's curious that the person who wrote to you didn't see instead the inherent ''strengths'' of a publicly editable encyclopedia and come contribute.

−

I'll work with those passages a bit to see if I can "neutralize" them a bit. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 15:15, 22 Jul 2005 (EDT)

+

I'll work with those passages to see if I can "neutralize" them a bit. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 15:15, 22 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:21, July 22, 2005

Is it really right to classify ROCOR as "Old Calendarist"? Their separation didn't have anything to do with the calendar change, and they're apparently on the verge of reunion with Moscow, anyhow. --Rdr. Andrew 13:00, 28 Feb 2005 (CST)

Archbishop Gregory (Dormition Skete / Colorado)

How should his eminence be classified? As a separate jurisdiction? Eddieuny 21:18, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Good question. What does he call his jurisdiction? Are there any other bishops in it with him? Their website describes them as "temporarily independent." I'd hate to make up a name for them if they didn't have their own, but they are probably worth a mention. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!)]] 21:48, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Article bias?

I received this feedback today from someone. Any comments? Thanks, Fr. John

Interesting. I think this article illustrates some of the problems with a publicly edited encyclopedia. Just a couple examples...

Headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, the synod has twelve bishops and is enjoying a period of relative stability amidst intermittent persecution on the part of the state church. One bishop, Gregory (George) of Colorado, recently went into schism, but took no parishes with him save four, calling themselves the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America.

This seems very biased in favor of Valentine and against Gregory (note that I am not the least bit fond of either of them).

In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired in clear disgust from the proceedings.

Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and the two of the Russian bishops of ROCOR, separated from the ROCOR and made new bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well documented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR was painful to watch, for even the most casual observer.

Again, obvious bias in favor of the Mansonville schismatics (yes, I have a personal interest here).

I don't see why it couldn't be worded a bit more neutrally. The original bulk of the article was taken by permission from a text written by a scholar in the field (who is himself, I believe, in one of these groups), JosephSuaiden. In any event, it's curious that the person who wrote to you didn't see instead the inherent strengths of a publicly editable encyclopedia and come contribute.

I'll work with those passages to see if I can "neutralize" them a bit. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!)]] 15:15, 22 Jul 2005 (EDT)